02053.02 101 Figure D-40 DSM2-Simulated and Measured Tidal Flow in Grant Line Canal at Tracy Boulevard Bridge for January 1997–September 1999 and February 17–March 2, 1996 4 High Tide 3 2 1 0 -1 Stage (feet msl)Stage (feet -2 Diurnal Tide Series 3 Low Tide -3 0 6 12 18 24 Time (Hours) 4 High Tide High Tide 3 2 1 0 -1 Stage (feet msl)Stage (feet -2 Semi-Diurnal Tide SeriesLow 3 Tide Low Tide -3 0 6 12 18 24 Time (Hours) 4 Higher High Tide 3 Lower High Tide 2 1 0 -1 Stage (feet msl)Stage (feet -2 Higher Low Tide Mixed Tide Series 3Lower Low Tide -3 0 6 12 18 24 Time (Hours) 02053.02 101 Figure D-41 General Types of Tidal Cycles Moon Sun Neap Tide Earth Sun Spring Tide Earth Moon Sun Neap Tide Earth Moon Sun Spring Tide Earth Moon 02053.02 101 Figure D-42 Conceptualization of the Effects of the Sun and Moon on Tides 5 Spring Spring 4 Spring Neap Neap 3 2 (feet msl) 1 Stage (ft) 0 -1 -2 Moon Phases -3 6-Aug 20-Aug 3-Sep 17-Sep Hourly Stage 25hr Running Average 02053.02 101 Figure D-43 Spring and Neap Tides at Martinez, California, August and September 2000 4 Ebb Tide 3 2 1 0 Flood Tide -1 Stage or Velocity -2 Stage Velocity Series3 -3 12:00 AM 6:00 AM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 12:00 AM 02053.02 101 Figure D-44 Relationship between Tidal Stage and Velocity 02053.02 101 Stage (feet msl) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 Stage MartinezMeasured Tidal 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 Date 8/16 8/17 8/18 Measured Tidal Stage atMartinez, August 1997 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 Figure D-45 Figure D-45 8/31 9/1 02053.02 101 Flow (cfs) -800,000 -600,000 -400,000 -200,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 0 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 Martinez TidalSimulated Flow 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 Date 8/16 8/17 8/18 Simulated Tidal Flowat Martinez, August1997 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 Figure D-46 Figure D-46 8/31 9/1 Tidal Stage at Martinez 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Stage (feet msl) (feet Stage -1 -2 -3 -4 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 Minimum 10th Percentile Average 90th Percentile Maximum 02053.02 101 Figure D-47 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Stage at Martinez, Water Years 1976–1991 Tidal Flows at Martinez 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Flow (cfs) -200,000 -400,000 -600,000 -800,000 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 10th Percentile Average 90th Percentile Maximum Minimum 02053.02 101 Figure D-48 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Flow at Martinez, Water Years 1976–1991 Tidal Velocity at Martinez 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 Velocity (feet/sec) Velocity -2 -3 -4 -5 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 Minimum 10th Percentile Average 90th Percentile Maximum 02053.02 101 Figure D-49 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Velocities at Martinez, Water Years 1976–1991 Chipps Island Stage 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Stage (feet msl) (feet Stage -1 -2 -3 -4 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 10th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile Minimum Maximum 02053.02 101 Figure D-50 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Stage at Chipps Island, Water Years 1976–1991 Chipps Island Tidal Flows 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Flow (cfs) -100,000 -200,000 -300,000 -400,000 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 10th Percentile Average 90th Percentile 02053.02 101 Figure D-51 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Flows at Chipps Island, Water Years 1976–1991 Tidal Stage in the Sacramento River at Rio Vista 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Stage (feet msl) (feet Stage -1 -2 -3 -4 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 10th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile Minimum Maximum 02053.02 101 Figure D-52 Distribution of Simulated Tidal Stage in the Sacramento River at Rio Vista, Water Years 1976–1991 02053.02 101 Flow (cfs) -100,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 -50,000 50,000 0 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Tidal Flows in the Sacramento River at Rio Vista Vista atRio River Sacramento in the Tidal Flows Oct-80 10 th Percentile Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Sacramento River at RioVi Sacramento River at Average Oct-84 Oct-85 Distribution of Simulated TidalFlow inthe 90 Oct-86 th Percentile Oct-87 sta, Water Years 1976–1991 sta, Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Figure D-53 Figure D-53 Oct-91 Sacramento River Stage at Freeport 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 Stage (feet msl) (feet Stage 6 4 2 0 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 10th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile Minimum Maximum 02053.02 101 Figure D-54 Distribution of Simulated River Stage in the Sacramento River at Freeport, Water Years 1976–1991 Sacramento River Flow at Freeport 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 Flow (cfs) 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 -10,000 Oct-86 Oct-87 Oct-88 Oct-89 Oct-90 Oct-91 Oct-76 Oct-77 Oct-78 Oct-79 Oct-80 Oct-81 Oct-82 Oct-83 Oct-84 Oct-85 10th Percentile Average 90th Percentile 02053.02 101 Figure D-55 Distribution of Simulated River Flow in the Sacramento River at Freeport, Water Years 1976–1991 Sacramento River Stage-Discharge Relationships 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 Average Stage (feet msl) (feet Stage Average 4 2 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Average Freeport Flow (cfs) Freeport Walnut Grove Rio Vista 02053.02 101 Figure D-56 Comparison of Sacramento River Flow, Water Years 1976–1991 Sutter and Steamboat Slough Flow vs. Freeport Flow 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 Slough Flow (cfs) Slough Flow 10,000 5,000 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Average Freeport Flow (cfs) Sutter Slough Flow Steamboat Slough Flow Figure D-57a. Freeport Flow vs. Sutter and Steamboat Sloughs Flow, Water Years 1976–1991 Sutter and Steamboat Slough Diversion Fractions 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Percent Diversion Flow Flow Percent Diversion 10 5 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Average Freeport Flow (cfs) Sutter Slough Flow Steamboat Slough Flow Figure D-57b. Freeport Flow vs. Diversions in Sutter and Steamboat Sloughs, Water Years 1976–1991 02053.02 101 Figures D-57a and D-57b Distribution of Simulated Flows in Sutter and Steamboat Sloughs Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough vs. Freeport 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 Flow (cfs) 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Average Freeport Flow (cfs) Georgiana Slough Delta Cross Channel Figure D-58a. Distribution of Simulated Flows in the Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough vs. Average Flow in the Sacramento River at Freeport, Water Years 1976–1991 Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough Diversion Percentage of Freeport Flow 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 PercentFreeportFlow of 10 5 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Average Freeport Flow (cfs) Georgiana Slough Delta Cross Channel Figure D-58b. Distribution of Simulated Flows in the Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough as a Percentage of Average Flow in the Sacramento River at Freeport, Water Years 1976–1991 02053.02 101 Figures D-58a and D-58b Distribution of Simulated Flows in the Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough Delta Cross Channel vs.